TN 295 



No. 9052 







/ V^-v° v^v" V^-'V v<^ 
>j*' .vaSte %„</ /iSfer-. ^** .v&Sfiji-. \/ .•»•-. w .<»v. \^ 









t*o« 














.■:. 






<^j. 'o » » 



■-. ^o* 







** v \ 









r.T* a 



^ <<> 




<* 







>bV 



* **, 








V*0* 






o . , - G^ V **"*XT* ' A 












' ^^n ~ J ^liill?« A Vy X. o%^?^" ^^ 










6 ' A 



oVo'1%^0, .4*.-^*.^ ,0*...^ % *O o A* -' l " 











•by 





^°^ 




^ a^ ,*-^^-'- *- ^ ' 

















o . a * ,G V o 

°0 * ?^~* .0° V ^^TV* .^ %.**•»'•• A?° "^ » ' ^ 




w 







^ .. V 






* <& 




*, .& /^J?A, # o V ^ » V 



1 * ^ 5 . . , ^ 










3?V V /.. %^v v^-V v*^V v^V p «? 

V '^^ % V V \/''°-'\V' V'^^V^ \*''o$**\S ^W./ V''-.^'' 



a* 



*°-v 







r»* ^ \> °y 




.** 



V I 








'^CT 




°o 






J.°V. 



•***■•. \/ .•«•, w :Jfe\ \/ #&. v** •«"•- \/ " " 







^0< 

-4 <?* 








^ 




^ 




^ q* 



& 



rV 




^, .. w) /% : '%&g} /\ ili ^^i -•©•" /\ • ? 







^ ^ '^ ^ " " 'K-. i*' '-^. ^ " ^\ »-,. t * 






^^• 






.«• ^\ * ♦♦■ 







JP^. 



n i°* 











^ q* 




c 










Bureau of Mines Information Circular/1985 




Determining Face Methane- Liberation 
Patterns During Longwall Mining 



By Andrew B. Cecala, Robert A. Jankowski, 
and Fred N. Kissell 




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 



jcyig^ | 



CD 

c 

33 

V) 

> mi ^ m 

'W/NES 75TH AV^ 



Information Circular 9052 



Determining Face Methane-Liberation 
Patterns During Longwall Mining 



By Andrew B. Cecala, Robert A. Jankowski, 
and Fred N. Kissell 




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary 

BUREAU OF MINES 
Robert C. Horton, Director 



TA/29S- 

no. fo^z 



Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data; 



Cecala, Andrew B 














Determining face methane- 


iberation patterns during 


ongwall mining. 


tin formation circu 


ar / United St 


ates Department 


of 


the Interior, 


Bu- 


reau of Mines ; 9052) 














Supt. of Docs, no.: 


I 28.27 


: 9052 










1. Coal— Methane 


content. 


2. 


Longwall minin 


g. 


I. Jankowski, 


Robert A. II. Kissell 


, Fred N 


III. 


Title. IV. Series: 


Information 


cir- 


cular (United States. 


Bureau o 


f Mines) ;9052. 








TN295.U4 [TP325] 


622s 


[622'. 334] 


85 


-17397 





1 



/^ 









Page 



^ CONTENTS 

Abstract 1 

Introduction 2 

Test setup for methane monitoring 2 

Testing 3 

Results 3 

Longwall panel 1 4 

Longwall panel 2 7 

Discussion 8 

Conclusions 9 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1. Sampling location on shearer for longwall faces tested 3 

2. Shearer methane levels for both cut directions 4 

3. Airflow patterns around longwall shearer 5 

4. Increased methane liberation during bumps 6 

5. Typical airflow patterns in headgate area 6 

6. Methane concentrations during headgate cutout 6 

7. Gradual increase in methane from headgate to tailgate 7 

8. Gradual increase in methane at tailgate as day progressed 7 

9. Gradual increase in methane from headgate to tailgate as day progressed.... 8 

TABLES 

1. Geological conditions of each longwall panel 3 

2. Average methane level downstream from shearer 5 

3. Methane levels measured simultaneously at shearer and tailgate 5 





UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS 


REPORT 


ft 


foot L/rain 


liter per minute 


f t/min 


foot per minute min 


minute 


f t 3 /min 


cubic foot per minute pet 


percent 


in 


inch s 


second 



DETERMINING FACE METHANE-LIBERATION PATTERNS DURING LONGWALL MINING 

By Andrew B. Cecala, 1 Robert A. Jankowski, 2 and Fred N. Kissell 3 



ABSTRACT 

As deeper seams are continually mined, methane liberation will con- 
tinue to increase and must be monitored effectively. To effectively 
monitor and develop appropriate control technology, methane-liberation 
patterns must be known. The Bureau of Mines recently completed a study 
to identify specific patterns of face methane liberation during long- 
wall mining. Both of the longwall faces surveyed had high methane lib- 
eration rates. At one longwall face, most of the methane was liberated 
during cutting of coal by the shearer mining machine. At the second 
face, a significant portion of methane was emitted from the face and 
floor. An effective methane-monitoring system would be different for 
each longwall panel because of the differences in how the gas is re- 
leased along the face. 



'Mining engineer. 
^Supervisory physical scientist. 
•^Research supervisor. 
Pittsburgh Research Center, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, PA. 



INTRODUCTION 



The Bureau of Mines conducted a study 
to measure and record methane levels in 
an attempt to identify the specific 
liberation patterns on longwall faces. 
Ignitions on longwall panels have been 
increasing over the past few years. To 
effectively monitor methane, it is nec- 
essary to know the specific libera- 
tion areas. Once liberation patterns are 
known for a longwall panel, effective 
monitoring systems can be installed, and 
effective control procedures can be 
implemented. 

Methane ignition is still one of the 
most serious hazards facing the coal mine 
operator. Over the past few years, there 
have been a number of coal mine fatal- 
ities due to methane ignitions. Records 
for the past 15 years indicate an average 
of approximately 50 reported methane ig- 
nitions a year in U.S. coal mines. Since 
1975, the number of ignitions has in- 
creased due in part to ignitions occur- 
ring on longwall panels where the high 



rate of extraction liberates methane at a 
higher rate. As mining continues to ex- 
pand to greater depths, it is estimated 
that methane levels will also increase. 4 

Methane is liberated at the face in two 
ways during longwall mining. First, gas 
is liberated by the cutting action of the 
shearer mining machine during the cutting 
sequence. Second, gas is emitted from 
the exposed coal along the total face, 
floor, and roof; this is also known as 
face bleeding. 

Ventilation is the primary means of 
controlling face methane liberation. In 
room-and-pillar mining, increased gas 
levels are usually reduced by increasing 
the airflow. On some longwall panels, 
this control method has produced face 
airflows that have exceeded 100,000 ft 3 / 
min with air velocities of over 1,000 ft/ 
min. In a few cases, these airflows have 
not been sufficient to dilulte and dis- 
perse the methane liberated during long- 
wall mining. 






TEST SETUP FOR METHANE MONITORING 



In the current study, both remote- 
sensing and handheld methane monitors 
were used. Two remote-sensing methane 
monitors were used, one on the shearer 
and the other at the tail end of the 
face. Handheld monitors were used to de- 
tect methane downwind of the shearer. 

The remote-sensing CSE 180R Monitors 5 
have a remote sensor head; connecting ca- 
bles are available in lengths of 10 to 
100 ft. The sensor head uses a catalytic 
diffusion-type sensor to monitor methane. 
From the temperature differential across 
a wheatstone bridge in the sensor head, 
the instrument calculates methane concen- 
trations in air from to 5 pet. The 
level of concentration is recorded con- 
tinuously on an internal strip-chart re- 
corder and is displayed on the monitor. 



The monitor located on the shearer was 
used to determine methane liberated 
during face cutting. This unit monitored 
a point on the face side of the shearer 
body near the tailside drum (fig. 1). 
The monitoring location at panel 1 was at 
the tailside splitter arm of the shearer. 
Since the shearer at panel 2 did not have 
a splitter arm, the monitor was placed on 
the body of the shearer. Because of the 
amount of water and coal thrown by the 
tail drum at these locations, the sensor 
head was housed in a sensor chamber on 
the walkway side of the shearer machine 
instead of at the sampling point. This 
chamber was 6 in. on all sides. Hard 
tubing extended from the chamber to the 
sampling point from which air was drawn 
into the chamber at about 4 L/min by two 



4 Irani, M. C, E. D. Thimons, T. G. 
Bobick, M. Duel, and M. C. Zabetakis. 
Methane Emissions From U.S. Coal Mines, A 
Survey. BuMines IC 8558, 1972, p. 57. 



^Reference to specific manufacturers is 
for information only and does not imply 
endorsement by the Bureau of Mines. 




Shearer monitor location 

FIGURE 1. - Sampling location on shearer for longwall faces tested. 



sampling pumps. This monitor had a re- 
sponse time of approximately 35 s. 

The second monitor, located at the tail 
end of the face, was used to deter- 
mine face liberation. This monitor was 
strapped to a hydraulic support, approxi- 
mately five supports from the tailgate. 
The sensor head was extended up and out 
to the front of the support. The sam- 
pling point was approximately 6 in. from 
the roof, and 2 ft from the face. 

Handheld monitors were used to de- 
termine methane levels downwind of the 



shearer. Readings were taken near the 
roof a few feet from the face, 30 ft 
downstream from the shearer, at 5-ft 
intervals . 

Federal regulations require that all 
working sections in coal mines have a 
methane monitor at the face to measure 
methane levels. In some cases, these 
values were correlated with values ob- 
tained from the monitor at the tail end 
of the face. 



TESTING 



Tests were performed at two different 
longwall faces to determine liberation 
and flow patterns during longwall mining. 
These faces were known to have high meth- 
ane liberation, and each panel had com- 
pletely different geological conditions 
(table 1). Both of these longwall panels 
were ventilated from head to tail. These 



faces are considered to be extremes for 
methane liberation for longwall mining 
today, but as deeper seams are mined, 
these could someday become the norms. 
Testing was performed at each panel by 
two Bureau personnel for one shift per 
day for 1 week. 



RESULTS 



The significant liberation and flow 
patterns of each longwall face were 
obtained. The results from testing at 



each face will be listed separately be- 
cause of the major differences in how the 
methane is emitted for each panel. 



TABLE 1. - Geological conditions of each longwall panel 



Approximate values 

Seam height ft, 

Overburden ft, 

Roof strength 

Cutting direction 

Longwall type 



Panel 1 



Panel 2 



24 (mining top 10) 

2,000 

Medium: shale. 

Unidirectional. 
Advancing. 



8 

550 

Medium: sandstone 

and siltstone. 

Bidirectional. 

Retreating. 



LONGWALL PANEL 1 

There were four significant findings: 

1. Methane levels were lowest during 
the tail-to-head pass (even when cutting 
was bidirectional) . 

2. Substantial methane dilution was 
occurring downstream from the shearer. 

3. Methane levels increased during 
bumps. 

4. Methane levels were highest during 
the headgate cutout. 

Methane Levels Were Lowest 
During Tail-to-Head Pass 



the airflow patterns around the shearer 
for the two cut directions (fig. 3). For 
the tail-to-head pass , the air coming 
down face flowed directly to the drums , 
and was forced out around the cowl and 
into the midsection of the work area. As 
more air reached the drums , turbulence 
increased and methane levels decreased. 
For the head-to-tail pass , the cowl par- 
tially blocked airflow to the drums, and 
methane liberated during cutting was not 
diluted with as much air at the shearer. 
Thus methane levels were higher at the 
shearer and immediately downstream from 
the shearer. 



Regardless of the cut direction, meth- 
ane liberation is the same because a unit 
volume of coal contains a certain unit 
volume of methane gas. As the coal is 
cut, the methane gas is released. Meth- 
ane levels around the shearer are deter- 
mined from the dilution by the primary 
airflow. Figure 2 shows typical methane 
levels at the shearer monitor for a head- 
to-tail (A) and a tail-to-head (B) pass. 
The average methane concentration for the 
head— to-tail pass was 0.72 pet; the aver- 
age concentration for the tail-to-head 
pass was 0.53 pet. These readings were 
also supported by handheld measurements 
taken at the tail end of the shearer. 
The differences can be accounted for by 



Substantial Methane Dilution was 
Occurring Downstream from Shearer 

This was supported by the level down- 
stream from the shearer taken by the 
handheld monitors , and from the measure- 
ments the remote methane monitor. Table 
2 shows the average level downstream from 
the shearer for the head-to-tail pass. 
At 10 ft downstream from the shearer, the 
methane concentration was 29 pet less 
than at the shearer. 

The methane level at the tail end of 
the face is based on a combination of the 
face emission (bleedoff along the entire 
face) , and the liberation during coal ex- 
traction. Table 3 compares the methane 



o 
a. 

•» 
O 

z 
o 
o 

UJ 

< 

X 

r- 

LU 




80 60 

SUPPORT NUMBER 



FIGURE 2. - Shearer methane levels for both cut directions. 



CUTTING TAIL-TO-HEAD 









Heo.dgo.te 




Tailgate 



Direction of airflow 



Direction of cut 



CUTTING HEAD-TO-TAIL 



V////////////////////////////////////////////////////.////, 




KEY 

£) ►• Airflow 

— •■ Methane 



Direction of airflow 



Direction of cut 



FIGURE 3. - Airflow patterns around longwall shearer. 



TABLE 2. - Average methane level 
downstream from shearer 



TABLE 3. - Methane levels measured simul- 
taneously at shearer and tailgate 





Distance , 


ft 


Concentration, 


pet 


5 


0.78 
.68 
.67 
.63 
.59 
.55 




10 




15 




20 




25 

30 





levels measured at the shearer and at the 
tailgate section of the face during a 
half shift. 

The methane levels at the tailgate at 
this longwall panel usually remained low 
because the methane was throughly diluted 
and mixed with the face airflow. Methane 
levels at the tailgate varied relative to 
those measured at the shearer with a lag 
time that depended on the location of the 
shearer on the face. Methane levels at 
the shearer at this panel consistently 
were higher than those measured at the 



Time 


Support 
No. 


Concentration, pet 




Shearer 


Tailgate 


8:40 

9:00 

9:20 

9:40 

10:00 

11:00 


115 
120 
87 
55 
20 

25 
35 
35 
35 


0.2 
.7 
.3 
.3 
.5 

1.1 
.2 
.2 
.3 

1.2 


0.2 
.3 
.3 
.3 
.4 
.4 
.3 
.2 
.2 
.3 



tail; under certain conditions, these 
levels were four to five times higher. 

Methane Levels Increased During Bumps 

Many times when mining deep seams, 
the overburden pressure builds and is 
spontaneously released through bumps. 



^ 1.25 



< 

X 

LU 



.00 



o 

■z. 
o 
o 

Uj" .75 



.50 

.25 





Normal cutting 




120 

FIGURE 4 



100 80 60 

SUPPORT NUMBER 

Increased methane liberation during bumps. 



This occurs even more often on longwall 
panels because of the pressure created by 
the gob. When bumps occur, the excess 
pressures are transferred to the face 
causing additional fracturing of the coal 
seam, which liberates additional meth- 
ane. When a substantial bump occurs, the 
methane levels can increase significant- 
ly. This can be seen in figure 4, which 
represents the remote monitor on the 
shearer. The tail-to-head pass was pro- 
ceeding as normal up to support 70, at 
which time three major bumps occurred 
within a few minutes , and the methane 
concentration jumped from an average 0.52 
pet to an average value of 1.03 pet. 
Fracturing by the bumps had released ad- 
ditional methane trapped within the seam, 
which would ordinarily not have been 
released until the coal was cut. 

Methane Levels Were Highest During 
Headgate Cutout 

As previously mentioned, the methane 
liberation rate is fairly constant under 
normal conditions for the entire face 
area. However, measured methane levels 
vary due to the extent of dilution with 
ventilation air. During the headgate 
cutout, the liberated methane was not 
adequately mixed and diluted by the 
primary face airflow (fig. 5). Due to 
blockage by the shearer and the 90° turn, 
a good portion of air often leaked into 
the gob. Because of this, the first 5 to 
10 shields were often poorly ventilated, 
and the methane levels increased (fig. 



LEGEND 
Face airflow 
O — - Methane flow 




FIGURE 5. - Typical airflow patterns in head- 
gate area. 




15 10 5 Cutout 

SUPPORT NUMBER 
FIGURE 6. - Methane concentrations during 
headgate cutout. 

6) . Typical methane concentration levels 
measured during the tail-to-head pass 
averaged 0.53 pet. From support 10 to 
the headgate, methane concentration at 



the shearer increased significantly, with 
a peak, value of 2.3 pet near support 5. 



LONGWALL PANEL 2 



There were three signif 
during the testing perf 
longwall panel: 

1. Methane built up g 
the face from headgate to 

2. Methane built up g 
day progressed. 

3. Methane was not li 
icantly by the cutting 
shearer, but was emitted 
and floor. 



icant findings 
ormed at this 

radually along 
tailgate, 
radually as the 

berated signif- 

action of the 

along the face 



Methane Built Up Gradually Alon g 
Face From Headgate to Tailgate 

Methane levels recorded at the shearer 
indicated a gradual buildup of methane 
along the face from the headgate to the 
tailgate. Figure 7 shows this gradual 
buildup of methane at the shearer for one 
pass, cutting from tail to head. At the 



beginning of the pass, the methane con- 
centration at the shearer was 0.8 pet and 
decreased continually to the headgate, 
where the methane concentration was 0.35 
pet. This gradual reduction in the meth- 
ane concentration from tailgate to head- 
gate was seen for all tests at this long- 
wall panel. 

Methane Built U p Gradually 
as Day Progressed 

This gradual buildup of methane dur- 
ing the work shift was detected by all 
the monitors. In figure 8, the station- 
ary methane monitor at support 159 shows 
the buildup for one pass. The methane 
concentration initially was 0.65 pet at 
the beginning of the pass and increased 
during the tail-to-head pass to a peak 
concentration of 0.95 pet. Figure 9 
shows the methane concentrations at the 
shearer. On the tail-to-head pass and 
the head-to-tail pass, the methane con- 
centration was greater at the tailgate 
than at the headgate. Also, the methane 




20 



40 60 80 

SUPPORT NUMBER 



100 



20 



140 



FIGURE 7. - Gradual increase in methane from headgate to tailgate. 




1230 



TIME,h 

FIGURE 8. - Gradual increase in methane at tailgate as day progressed. 



1.00 



° 75 



o 
o 

LU 

< 

X 
H 
LU 



.50 



.25- 



KEY 
Direction of cut 



oo p.m. y 




9=00 a.m. 



I2 : I0 p.m.^ 
10=15 a.m. 







20 



40 



60 



80 



100 



120 



140 



160 



SUPPORT NUMBER 



FIGURE 9. - Gradual increase in methane from headgate to tailgate as day progressed. 



concentration at the tailgate increased 
0.4 pet from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., con- 
firming that there was a gradually build 
up of methane as the day progressed. 

Methane was Not Liber ated Significant! y 
By Cutting Action of Shearer, But Was 
Emitted Along Total Face and Floor 

It is common to observe substantial 
methane dilution as the distance 



increases downstream from the shearer be- 
cause, in most cases, a portion of meth- 
ane is liberated from the coal cut by the 
cutting drums. However, at this longwall 
panel, there was no significant methane 
liberation by the cutting of the shearer. 
The methane level was the same at the 
shearer as it was 25 ft upstream or down- 
stream from it. 



DISCUSSION 



The two longwall surveys showed totally 
opposite results. These mines are at the 
extremes for methane liberation today, 
but in the future as mining continues to 
go deeper, similar panels may be the norm 
for longwall mining. At the first mine, 
most of the methane was liberated during 
cutting of the coal by the shearer; at 
the second mine, most of the methane was 
from face and floor emission. Because of 
these differences, an effective methane- 
monitoring system would need to be dif- 
ferent for each longwall panel. 

At longwall panel 1, the significant 
part of the liberation was from the coal 
being cut by the shearer. Although the 



amount of methane liberated is indepen- 
dent of the cut direction or location on 
the face, recorded methane levels were 
26 pet higher on the head-to-tail pass 
than on the tail-to-head pass, owing to 
the additional turbulence and mixing of 
the ventilating air during cutting from 
tail to head. Recorded methane levels 
were highest during the headgate cutout, 
during which the liberated methane was 
not adequately mixed and diluted by the 
primary face airflow mainly because of 
blockage by the shearer and the 90° turn 
at the headgate. During the headgate 
cutout, a major portion of the air is 
forced back into the gob for the first 10 



to 15 supports. It was also observed 
that when overburden pressure builds and 
spontaneously released through bumps, 
methane levels increase significantly. 

Methane levels at the tailgate varied 
relative to those measured at the shearer 
with a lag time that depended on the 
shearer's face location. The changes at 
the tailgate were not proportional to 
those at the shearer; however, measured 
changes in concentrations at the tailgate 
were very minor except when the shearer 
was cutting out at the tailgate. This 
was due to the dilution of liberated 
methane with the primary airflow as the 
distance increased downstream from the 
shearer. This dilution downstream from 
the shearer was detected with the hand- 
held monitors. 

To effectively monitor a longwall panel 
of this nature, the sensing instrument 
should be located on or near the shearer. 
Hazardous methane levels could be encoun- 
tered at the shearer yet not substan- 
tially increase the methane level at the 
tailgate end of the face. 



At longwall panel 2, the significant 
part of the methane was due to face 
and floor emission. There was a gradual 
buildup of methane along the entire face 
from headgate to tailgate, and there was 
a gradual buildup of methane as the day 
progressed due to the additional face and 
floor exposure. Coal was mined on this 
face for only one shift; during the other 
two shifts, the face had time to bleed 
off a portion of the methane.. As cutting 
progressed through the day, new coal was 
exposed and the methane level increased. 
No significant methane was liberated by 
the cutting of coal by the shearer, as 
evidenced by the fact that concentration 
at the shearer was the same as that 25 ft 
upstream or downstream from the shearer. 

For this longwall panel, the most ef- 
fective monitoring location is at the 
tail end of the face. Since the methane 
is not being liberated by cutting of coal 
by the shearer, a monitor located on the 
shearer would not be of benefit unless 
conditions were to change. 



CONCLUSIONS 



As the depth of seams increases, meth- 
ane liberation will increase. To effec- 
tively monitor methane, liberation pat- 
terns must be known. At the two longwall 
panels surveyed for this study, these 
patterns were totally different. At the 
first panel, most of the methane was lib- 
erated during cutting of coal by the 
shearer. The substantial variation in 
methane levels during the mining cycle 
were dependent on the effectiveness of 
dilution by the primary airflow. Methane 
levels were higher during the head-to- 
tail pass than during the tail-to-head 
pass, and they were highest during the 



headgate cutout. At the second panel, 
most of the methane was due to face and 
floor emission. Because of this, methane 
levels at the tailgate end of the face 
were substantially higher than those in 
the headgate area, independent of the lo- 
cation of the shearer at the face. An 
effective methane-monitoring system must 
vary according to how the gas is released 
from each longwall panel. Whether the 
methane is liberated by the shearer or 
emitted from the face and floor, more 
effective dilution methods must be 
developed. 



GPO: 198S-30S-O19 20.112 



INT.-BU.OF MINES, PGH..P A. 28 125 



U.S. Department of the Interior 
Bureau of Mines— Prod, and Distr. 
Cochrans Mill Road 
P.O. Box 18070 
Pittsburgh. Pa. 15236 



AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 



OFFICIAL£USINESS 
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 

] Do not wi sh to recei ve thi s 
material, please remove 
from your mailing list. 

"2 Address change* Please 
correct as indicated* 










^ °Jlflll r ^ 

* .0^ \ ^" A* % 'S^ ^ V 






W 






'"^o* :^'; *b^ ."""^IS'". '"^o* " *'&DV%5*** *r><F »*S§i3f" ***^" 




o 



iOv, 




•^ N o ,0 V 





o 




" * °' ^ v * s VL* 



c" ♦ 








<^ 




'oK 



^V 






A 







"oV° 



^ 







v ^. 





i~ .r 



,** ^ 




^V 



**% 




*^w $ s «. ~ -p-.7»" A <*. *'TTT*' C^ 'o »•■."»* A 



3,0 V. 




^^ 



.•afe'. v.^ ->»m. %/ .•»-•. \/ :'M^-, \s 




._ 







tt-t 







rr- 












r <j> »•;•• .\v v o 









n,i 








R* * ^ '«§&v ^ 

*W ^ ; -^fe^ ****** % ^ :% MB^'' "W* 

V -Si °^ valjv ^°- R" > ^ •JBi3k : ^°* 








i » <\ 






*+ . ..^ 



^ N ' 



■*> *• 







a> *..o' * 



<P 












V\^ 









iCKMAN ^1 $ . -,/ 

*► O .'* 



HECKMAN 
BINDERY INC 



^ 



t -, FEB 86 



VP=T «. MWOCSTER. 
V-^ INDIANA 469W 












&»- ^ 









o . o ' •?, 






^ 

^ 






V 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




